Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses Indiana’s planned December 2024 execution of Joseph Corcoran and examines the state’s unusual policy of barring media witnesses from executions, with context about how other states handle media access to executions. Professor Sarat argues that Indiana’s media ban undermines transparency and public accountability, as journalists serve as crucial neutral observers who can document the government's most extreme action and inform the public about how their tax dollars are being used.

In this second of a series of columns, University of Toronto visiting law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan explores whether Americans concerned about Donald Trump’s potential return to office can realistically relocate to other countries, drawing from the his personal experience as an expatriate and broader analysis of international migration patterns. Professor Buchanan argues that large-scale emigration from the U.S. is virtually impossible due to logistical constraints in host countries (even immigrant-friendly ones like Canada), noting that even temporary surges in immigration can overwhelm countries’ housing, healthcare, and education systems while potentially triggering xenophobic political backlash.

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar and Illinois Law professor Jason Mazzone discuss a legal challenge to Mississippi’s law allowing the counting of absentee ballots that arrive up to five business days after Election Day, as long as they are postmarked by Election Day. Professors Amar and Mazzone argue that the law is consistent with federal election statutes and constitutional principles, and that the plaintiffs’ interpretation of “Election Day” is overly narrow and inconsistent with other accepted election practices.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses the Republican National Convention’s strategy of downplaying controversial issues like abortion, the January 6 insurrection, and election denialism. Professor Sarat argues that the GOP employed a “hidden ball trick” to conceal their true positions on these topics, deceiving voters and potentially harming democracy in their pursuit of power.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses Harvard University’s recent decision to stop issuing official statements on public matters that do not directly affect the university’s core function, a move that other universities are also considering or have already taken. Professor Sarat argues that while this decision is controversial, it is a step in the right direction as it allows universities to focus on their essential purpose of seeking truth through open inquiry and debate, avoids the risk of chilling debate or alienating community members, and encourages individuals on campus to stand up for their beliefs through their work and lives as citizens.

The opinion piece discusses a recent Indiana appeals court ruling that granted religious exemptions to the state's restrictive abortion law based on Indiana's Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). The author argues that this ruling could have broader implications, potentially providing a basis in federal constitutional law to challenge abortion restrictions nationwide on the grounds of religious discrimination.

Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf discusses the Supreme Court’s refusal to hear a case challenging Washington State’s ban on conversion therapy, Tingley v. Ferguson, and specifically the implications of the dissent from Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. Professor Dorf explains that their dissenting opinion demonstrates their willingness to invalidate such bans based on free speech, a stance that could undermine the regulation of medical practices. Professor Dorf points out that while a circuit split exists on the legality of conversion therapy bans, the broader concern is the potential impact of the Justices’ views on medical regulation, including recent decisions regarding access to abortion medication like mifepristone.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat argues that the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, which ended affirmative action in higher education, is the worst legal decision of 2023, setting back efforts to dismantle white privilege in the U.S. and resisting the construction of a more inclusive society. Professor Sarat explains why the decision is undemocratic, exacerbating racial inequities and closing pathways to power and prosperity for students of color, contrary to the aspirations of a genuinely inclusive and egalitarian democracy.

Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf comments on last week’s conviction of Sam Bankman-Fried on fraud charges related to the operations of his cryptocurrency platform, FTX. Professor Dorf notes that while some view him as a contemporary Robin Hood, given his donations to effective altruistic causes, his actions raise questions about the line between altruism and criminality.

Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf criticizes Florida’s new middle school social studies education standards, which suggest that enslaved people benefited from slavery in some instances by learning skills such as carpentry or blacksmithing that they could later use for personal benefit. Professor Dorf argues that this perspective dangerously minimizes the horrors of slavery, and could be a calculated move by political figures like Governor Ron DeSantis to leverage culture war issues, distort historical truths, and consolidate power.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat comments on an announcement last March by Louisiana Governor John Bel Edwards that he opposed capital punishment and points out that now Governor Edwards has the opportunity to prove his opposition. Professor Sarat argues that Governor Edwards should use his authority to order the Board of Pardons to hold hearings on the death row clemency petitions and review them on their merits to turn his abolitionist rhetoric into action.

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar explains why the “New Illinois” idea—which suggests separating the urbanized Chicago area from the rest of the state—is legally and politically implausible. Professor Amar points out two unanswered constitutional questions and the daunting political hurdles that make the “New Illinois” idea unlikely to ever be more than an idea.

Former federal prosecutor Dennis Aftergut comments on the “speaking indictment” of Donald Trump and what it means. Mr. Aftergut argues that the indictment illustrates the principle no one is above the law.

Cornell professor Joseph Margulies explains that social forgiveness—that is, restoring membership to someone who has committed a wrong against society—is, in the words of one reader “being left alone, free of probation, registration, or record.” Professor Margulies points out that respect for the rules of the group and tolerance for others are essential components of membership in (and reentry into) society.

Marci A. Hamilton—a Professor of Practice in Political Science at the University of Pennsylvania and the founder and CEO of CHILD USA—explains why federal bankruptcy law causes harm to child sex abuse victims. Professor Hamilton points out that numerous Catholic dioceses, as well other large, powerful groups like the Boy Scouts of America and USA Gymnastics have used Chapter 11 to keep their secrets and avoid fairly compensating victims.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat comments on recent reporting that Donald Trump wants to use the firing squad, mass executions, and videos to heighten the drama of capital punishment. Professor Sarat argues that what Trump says about executions reveals the depth of his fascination with ghoulish things and that his latest death penalty musings offer a frightening reminder of the cruelty he would unleash if he is returned to the Oval Office.

In this fifth column in a series about the murder of Tyre Nichols by Memphis police officers, Cornell professor of government Joseph Margulies argues that, for any good to come of Nichols’s death, we must judge his killers in a forgiving spirit. Professor Margulies explains what it means to judge in a forgiving spirit: to assess the actions of another anchored in the unshakeable belief that those who have done wrong are nonetheless one of us.

Cornell Law professor Joseph Margulies continues his discussion of why anger can benefit democracy, but he rebuts claims that only anti-democratic solutions can remedy the harms that are supposedly being inflicted on our society. Specifically, Professor Margulies points out as evidence of effective democratic processes the imminent passage of the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 and the rejection by Kansas voters of a state constitutional amendment that could allow the legislature to restrict or prohibit abortions in that state.

Middle Tennessee State University professor John R. Vile explains what the Supreme Court’s decision this term in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization implies about the Court’s view of its prior decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Professor Vile argues that it was unlikely a doctrine such as substantive due process could ever adequately resolve such a contentious issue as abortion and predicts that rigid state legislation that makes no exception for cases of rape, incest, and the life of the mother will face similar backlash.

Illinois Law professor Matthew Finkin comments on the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Viking River Cruises v. Moriana, pointing out several issues in the Court’s reasoning and conclusion as to the arbitration questions raised in that case. Professor Finkin argues that the decision incites three lines of inquiry—historical, empirical, and doctrinal—and then begs them, ultimately leaving more questions than it resolves.